There is no "I" in "You"

[quip]

If so, then how does A disappear?

It's your hypothetical -- why are you asking anyone else to flesh it out?

Lazy thinker spotted.

Not familiar with the Socratic method?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Though A still identifies as A in B's body. You still haven't determined why or how A must identify as C ..or what that even entails.

I've already given you an example which you've neatly ignored. I've laid out how my own body has changed, and how that has affected my mentality.

Rather than address that, you seem to prefer bandying words.

[Edwardo Piet]

What Buddhist beliefs do you have Quip? Any supernatural ones? Karma? Afterlife?

[quip]

Though A still identifies as A in B's body. You still haven't determined why or how A must identify as C ..or what that even entails.

I've already given you an example which you've neatly ignored. I've laid out how my own body has changed, and how that has affected my mentality.

Rather than address that, you seem to prefer bandying words.

I thought I did address that one...and a kudos to boot!

Scroll back a bit...I would but I'm too lazy! 

[The Grand Nudger]

Liar? I fail to follow that sublime logic.

Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.  

Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason?  Apparently not.  We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective?  Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection?  Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.

I told you that I'm saying nothing at all, nonsense, woo.
One wonders why your so insentient on expecting otherwise.  

I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless. I recall, for example, one of your very first posts..that referenced demonstrable truths, and not only that, you told us that this was what buddhism -was-. Two truths, a counter, and a method to free oneself....of -whatever it is you refuse to say-. Hey, maybe we could even hear -some- elaboration...on the godamned thread title.....sigh.

If you have nothing to say, why waste so many words?

[quip]

What Buddhist beliefs do you have Quip? Any supernatural ones? Karma? Afterlife?

I've a more philosophical bent on Buddhism (Rather than a traditional ritualistic based one.)

Karma - no not beyond causes and effects.

Rebirth - Yes. As opposed to reincarnation (a subtle but important distinction)

Emptiness - Sunyata 

Anatta - no self

etc....

[Ben Davis]

Though Descartes has been historically, thoroughly questioned that's not what's being question here.

You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.

Have you any thoughts on my post?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd agree with the OP title. There is no "I" in me for that would require me to be inside myself.

[quip]

[quote='quip' pid='1278566' dateline='1463694043']


Liar? I fail to follow that sublime logic.

Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.  

Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason?  Apparently not.  We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective?  Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection?  Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.
[/quote]

Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.    Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.

I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.

[quote]

I told you that I'm saying nothing at all, nonsense, woo.
One wonders why your so insentient on expecting otherwise.  

I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.

[/quote]

That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not!  Would you make up my mind?

---

[quote='quip' pid='1278555' dateline='1463693464']
Though Descartes has been historically, thoroughly questioned that's not what's being question here.

You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.

Have you any thoughts on my post?
[/quote]

No it doesn't.

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='1278586' dateline='1463694618']
Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.  

Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason?  Apparently not.  We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective?  Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection?  Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.

Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.    Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.

I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.

I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.

That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not!  Would you make up my mind?

---

You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.

No, it doesn't.
[/quote]

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='1278586' dateline='1463694618']
Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.  

Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason?  Apparently not.  We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective?  Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection?  Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.

Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.    Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.

I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.

I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.

That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not!  Would you make up my mind?

---

You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.

Have you any thoughts on my post?

No it doesn't. I'm not attempting to ascertain or refute the existence of the self.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.    Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.

Strange, I remember trying to answer each of your questions in earnest, even after if became apparent that you were a fraud, as did many others. In fact......there's this thing called a forum, upon which records of conversations are kept - to which you could refer.

I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear?  You're here to troll and tell we unenlightened atheists how wrong we are...about whatever it is you think we're wrong about....not for any of the reasons you've claimed in this thread.  

That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not!  Would you make up my mind?

I am pretty good at pulling troll-strings.  I have alot of practice. Hell, it might even be my specialty, come to think of it.